“And yet the screen protector PR pitch that landed in my inbox last week proved difficult to resist: ‘Subject: Preview the bulletproof iPhone? On March 18, Sir Lancelot’s Armor will announce the first reusable screen protectors for iPhones and iPads made of bulletproof glass….If interested in getting a sample to use or test, please let me know the model and color of your iPhone,'” Hutchinson reports. “”

“The only word I needed to hear was ‘bulletproof,'” Hutchinson reports. “According to the company’s press kit, the word ‘bulletproof’ is used because the screen protector is made from ‘tempered bulletproof glass.’ It’s important to note that (subject line of the PR e-mail notwithstanding) the press materials don’t actually say that the screen protector itself is bulletproof—only that it’s made out of bulletproof glass. I’m sure that in sufficient quantity the glass is bulletproof, but the question I was excited to answer was whether or not the Holy Grail screen protector could stand up to live fire.”

40 Comments

The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government. The ability to shoot criminals in the face is just a side benefit.

The sooner you gun control nuts figure that out, the better.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. — Noah Webster

BTW: The reason the psychos go to public schools to wreak destruction is because public schools are GUN FREE ZONES and they know everyone inside is unarmed and helpless.

I’ve been waiting years for 2nd amendment advocates to put their money (firearms) where their mouths are. They’ve failed to defend the constitution and all the other key amendments against this much ballyhooed government oppression.

The battle is currently in the courts, not in the streets. And the NRA and other organizations supported by grass roots gun owners are there, fighting your battles for you. Here is a case where the NRA successfully overturned in court a public housing authority ban on gun ownership:

Spot on mossman. That second amendment of yours is good for toilet paper now. You can have all the guns you want but if the people lack the intestinal fortitude to take action for what is right then it’s sit and drain, feel no pain and let the good constitution times roll.

The only reason the US is not already a totalitarian government on a par with mainland China is the hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of the citizens. It’s not that an AR-15 is going to stop a tank. It’s that provocation sufficient to raise an armed resistance is unthinkable. It would be to costly and messy politically and economically. So the US government is limited to chipping away here and there at our Bill of Rights. It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing. Both are guilty, from gun bans to government spying. The problem is that there are more and more people like Ed, who will roll over for anything the government cares to dictate.

Hey Zeke, hope you are doing well these day, haven’t seen that much of you around the site.

I don’t know that guns are the only reason that the US is a totalitarian government but it’s pretty reasonable. The reason I say this is that other countries out there that are not under the rule of a totalitarian government have somewhat more restrictive gun laws and they seem to be doing well. For me it’s the attitude of the people that is more effective and I’ve alluded to that in my other post.

I do like what you are saying about the US government chipping away at your Bill of Rights. The whole Snowden affair has shown not only the spying features but also points to industrial espionage and commercial theft by the NSA.

What really gets me though is this whole thing with the Iraq invasion. It has some interesting parallels with what is happening in Crimea right now. Sad to see the UN and their principles (especially when it comes to respect of other nations) get washed down the toilet when it comes to the US and Russia doing what they darn well please.

That and torture, my goodness, allowing torture of other human beings and to see what I consider a once great nation going along with that. Makes me shake my head.

I totally agree that for this to happen you need people to roll over and get fed the cake and enjoy the government games. You can have all the guns you want but when the people are controlled to the point where they allow such things to go on without revolting, guns are irrelevant.

I sure hope that things change for the better, but I think there is some rock bottom that is going to have to be hit first.

Thanks, RW. Not everyone appreciates my insights, and there are times when those insights are not accurate. But in this case I believe the big picture is accurate. The government can’t kick this dog because it has sharp teeth, so it offers treats and whispers soothing words while slipping the collar over its head.

“Last time I checked, the people in the United States still had the right to free speech, still had freedom of the press, still had the right to choose their own religious beliefs.”
====

Yeah? Well so do most other western democracies, which don’t have the equivalent of the Second Amendment. The US is only *slightly* ahead in that the things you list are more absolute, on paper anyway.

There are no facts that support your claims. In the State of Washington in the US gun injuries average .93 per 100,000. That is a 1 in 75,000 chance per year of your being injured by a gun. Your chance of dating a supermodel is 1 in 88,000. Your chances of being a native Cherokee language speaker are 1 in 17,000. Your chances of being injured in an auto accident are <100 to 1.

There has been a significant decrease in violent crime over the last 10 years in the US, as gun ownership has increased dramatically. The places with the lowest crime rates are the places with the most increase in firearm ownership.

Britain has a very low gun crime rate because guns are prohibited, but it has the highest violent crime rate in the civilized world. This is due to the fact that citizens have no means of defending themselves (and indeed are prosecuted for doing so), and the criminals know this. Britain is now ruled by strong-arm thugs, who take whatever they want from anyone weaker. Homes are routinely broken into by thieves in broad daylight, with the residents at home.

As for other freedoms in these countries, try making critical statements about gays or muslims in Canada or Britain and see what that gets you.

ALL (109) of the countries above America have 100% gun bans.
Remove just six urban areas in the United States totaling under 1200 square miles, and the Murder Rate in the United States of America would be under 0.9 per 100,000 per year!

It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLAND is not shown on this list because it has NO OCCURRENCE of MURDER!

However, SWITZERLAND’S law requires that EVERYONE:
1. Own a gun.
2. Maintain Marksman qualifications.

It concluded that “Thus, when we consider countries that are similar to the United States, a strong correlation exists between the number of guns per capita and the gun-related homicide rate. Perhaps the U.S. should consider modeling its gun laws after some of the other developed nations.”

I still feel that there are many other influences that affect homicides with firearms (history, culture, standard of living) and while one series of laws may work for one may not work for another. However as loud as you say it, gun bans and restrictions in some instances do work.

So they found a significant correlation on the second graph when they eliminated some outliers. Why didn’t they eliminate the outliers on the first graph? That would also have produced a statistically significant result. The problem for them is that it would have been a negative correlation, which would blow their suppositions out of the water.

Also, if you eliminate Chicago, New York, and Washington DC, where guns are basically outlawed, from the US data, the US slides WAY down the list.

That’s kind of the point I am making and I think you are pointing out something that lends itself to it.

I believe that the adage “guns don’t kill people, people do” works just as well for guns laws “gun laws don’t save people, people save people.”

By selecting like specific data like swordmaker did you can show that the US is on the bottom of the list when it comes to gun homicides therefore the gun laws for that country work. Same for the other article, only this time the data they use argue that the gun laws for that country don’t work.

Now you are telling me that if you eliminate three cities in the US the U.S. slides the list. Can you reference that for me please. You know I’ll look at it. You are also telling me that guns are “basically” outlawed for these cities. Does that mean that Americans have the right to bare arms except Americans that live in Chicago, New York and Washington? From the brief look I’ve had for Chicago it looks like gun availability is what is being restricted not the right to own a gun per se. I could be wrong of course and it does seem to work in the modern day illogical approach of one arm of the government to say that Americans have the right to bear arms while another prevents stores from selling them. Still it introduces another parameter.

I’m still not convinced that gun laws are THE factor influencing homicides. Yes they do have an influence but there are many other factors at play and obviously statistics can be used one way or another to sway the argument.

Always a pleasure exchanging ideas Zeke, thanks for letting me know about Chicago, NY and Washington. I certainly would not mind more insight if you are willing to provide it. I know some of the basics of the US laws but details, well that’s more than likely your specialty.

If you scroll down to violent crime for Chicago compared to the State of Illinois and the national numbers you can see that Chicago’s violent crime rate is almost double the state and national numbers.

If guns control laws worked Chicago should be way below the state and national numbers. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation:

“Illinois is the only state in the country that completely prohibits concealed carry of firearms for its citizens. It also does not recognize the CCLs of other states. Illinois gun laws also severely restrict the usage, possession and sale of firearms within the state’s jurisdiction. Possession of automatic firearms and short barreled firearms are outright banned. Apart from this, the state of Illinois allows the local jurisdictions to further regulate the gun laws and this has resulted in many counties and local governments to pass even more restrictive gun control laws within their jurisdictions – Chicago Gun Laws being an example.

Chicago citizens, who want to own firearms, are not only required to abide by the state laws but are also required to fulfill additional obligations imposed by the Chicago Gun Laws. Citizens are required to possess a separate Chicago firearm permit to own guns. They are also required to complete the Chicago gun registration process in the local police stations and are also required to renew it every year. The firearm permit is only provided to people who complete the Chicago firearm training course, which includes one hour of range training and four hours of classroom orientation. In addition to all these stipulations, gun owners still cannot carry firearms publicly because the state laws do not permit it; they can only carry firearms within their dwellings.”

The situation is similar in New York and Washington, DC. Remove those 3 cities from the national statistics and the US goes way down the list of violent nations.

What you SHOULD be looking at is crime rates in those developed countries per 100,000 and the US would be at the bottom. In addition, if you exclude a specific demographic from the US gun homicide rate, we too, would be at the bottom. . . As I posted in that original posting just six areas of the US comprising less than 1200 square miles, skew the homicide rate. . . and I’ll add that one cohort in a specific demographic accounts for better than 85% of the firearms homicides in those areas.

Your arguments would carry some weight, were
it not for the fact that too many of those given the right to defend themselves have take this right to mean “shoot first, ask questions later” and “I have a gun, I might as well stick it to someone’s face and demand some money” or “My job / school / wife pulled an number on me, I will randomly shoot some of them and be famous for a few news bulletins.

So, is it wise? No. Some people may well be able to drive 150 mph safely, but we are not going to risk it!

Don’t care about the others? What allows you to make that ridiculous assumption? And exactly who do you mean by “you people”? If you’re talking about a stereotypical right-wing gun owner you’re way off. I’m a Democratic precinct committee person.

Bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

I didn’t read the whole thing, but surely, in sufficient quantity anything is bulletproof? If this is made of the same thing as bulletproof glass, but isn’t because it’s too thin, then it isn’t bulletproof.

Actually, air can be made bullet proof. Increase the air pressure to 500 BAR and try firing a bullet through it. 500 BAR is 7,252 pounds per Square Inch of Air Pressure. Fire even a magnum round and it would go “click” and the bullet would probably be pushed into the cartridge. LOL. The atmosphere on Venus at the surface is 90 BAR, or 1305 PSI. . . 90 times Earth’s air pressure. It’s likely a gun wouldn’t fire too well there, either.

Jony designed the iPhone to be used, not just sat on a desk or in a pocket, safe from damage through interaction with a world that can break things. My iP4 has the Belkin case on it that Apple gave me for free during the ‘antenna-gate’ fiasco, which along with a cheap screen protector has meant the phone still looks like new, after getting on for four years of being carried in pockets with all sorts of objects that have left scars all over the case and protectors, while my iP5 is in a fully armoured case, allowing me to use it in pouring rain, snow, being knocked around at rock gigs, etc, and being dropped onto concrete and Tarmac surfaces.
In short, both get used everyday, as tools, not some poncy ornament or item of male jewellery, I really couldn’t give a toss about them being admired by others, quite the opposite; the less they’re recognised as being an iPhone, thus valuable, and likely to be stolen, the more I like it.
However, that does NOT mean I don’t recognise the beauty of the design, and sheer quality of the manufacturing processes that have gone into creating those devices, I do, and admire them every time I use them, I just don’t feel the need to be showing them off to all and sundry; I’m a grown-up, not a ten year old.

Respectfully disagree.
Jonny did not prioritize or even consider wear damage from use when he designed the iPhones .. More so in iphone 5!
Im am iphone person and love them.. But one has to be honest about facts.
I phones wear resistance is next to none existent.
Jonny , imho, actually designed it as an ornate desk item.
Style overpowered practicality! Not so good for a mobile device carried in pockets with other stuff..
But it is truly beautiful !
Unfortunately at the end, for most, even the style ends up being hidden.. Either by a case or in a year you will have a naked iphone with all worn out finish that looks like it came out if a grinding machine!
So to truly enjoy iphone beauty.. One has to leave it on a desk.. Or worry constantly where it is placed and what it comes in contact with it!
Iphones are strong.. They don’t break easily and function great.. But their finish for wear resistance it the terrible !

I’ve dropped all my iPhones – 3G, 3GS, 4S, 5S – and actually my 4S a number of times without a case or bumper. My 5S is the first to actually crack the screen when dropped, and it was even in Apple’s red leather case. Seems way more delicate than the older versions.

You don’t know what you are talking about. The iPhone’s screens are not made out of easily scratched plastic because Jonny I’ve considered that in his design. . . and selected Corning Gorilla Glass for its resistance to both scratching (which all glass has over mere plastic) and breaking, which Gorilla Glass is five times less prone to do than regular glass (MOHS scale of 7.2 compared to 5.5). The cases were either aircraft grade Aluminum (iPhone 2, 4, 4s, 5), or polycarbonate (3, 3GS, 5C) which is the same material they make bullet-proof shields out of in slightly thicker forms. Yes, it can scratch, but not if you care for it well. Unless Apple were to make them out of Titanium, scratching is always a potential issue. The anodized aluminum cases held up remarkably well. The painted ones not so well. But Ive did consider wear and tear in designing the products.